Humans give birth to babies that grow up to give birth to babies that grow up to give birth to babies... Chickens lay eggs that give birth to chickens
that lay eggs that give birth to chickens... Trees drop nuts that grow into trees that drop nuts that grow into trees...

Ha Ha this is fun Jigger ! But you're going to lose because it has to be evidence of something ? You don't get to say what it's evidence of
anymore than I do. Same in turn vice versa. I can say it's evidence of this or that by relation. Add to it that it makes total sense and I'm sorry you
don't have to look at it as evidence to anything but that doesn't mean I can't present it to a jury. Call it circumstantial if you chose. Still
evidence.

I think we're just playing with the word, evidence, here. I know of the information it took to create the first living cell, and I can look at the
perfectly spaced veins on a leaf, and I can say, "Wow, these things sure seem designed." But, in no way can I say that it is evidence of a god.

First, we have to try to set up an environment that would allow these things to occur naturally. If unsuccessful, then we can suggest that some form
of intelligence manufactured these things. We have to first focus on an alien race having played with the environment on this planet. Then we should
consider that maybe a scientist in another dimension is growing this universe in a petri dish. And, of course there's the possibility that our
universe is an infinitesimally small part of a larger organism.

But, NOTHING can lead us to the conclusion that a GOD did it. A god is only found in fairy tales. There's no such thing.

How's it going, my good friend? Out of respect I will keep it civil and try to help explain where people are coming from. I know we don't always see
eye to eye, but it mostly has to do with science vs faith and people not understanding the difference between the two.

Believing in the bible or god isn't the issue. The reason people are quick to jump on creationists, is because they constantly post lies, claims that
cannot be substantiated or backed up, and assert that certain fields of science such as evolution are based on faith and not fact. Me saying this is
not an attack, it can be proven by reading the top 10 threads in this section. It's not a conspiracy, people who study science genuinely get offended
when somebody with little to no knowledge about a theory in science claims to be an authority on the subject, and butchers it. There are several
theories and hypotheses in science regarding the beginning of life on earth. Abiogenesis is one explanation and is certainly more sound than the
Genesis story that contains multiple factors that are demonstrably wrong. If consciousness has to come from an already existing consciousness, then
where did THAT existing one come from? When faced with that question, most creationist just say "oh, it was always there", but it makes no logical
sense. If the existing consciousness does not need a creator, why does ours?

Although I asked people to be civil, I didn't say you had to walk on egg shells Barcs.

I know, there is no
pleasing me. Sheesh man I think I like the old Barcs better.

Abiogenesis is one explanation and is certainly more sound than the Genesis story that contains multiple factors that are demonstrably wrong.

You can give some examples of both if you like.

Also I have ran over this " where did it's Daddy come from " multiple times. There must be a causeless cause or you what you suggest is an infinite
number of retro generations and that's the most impossible thing anyone can suggest. Look the page we're on over please.

God is what he is isn't he ? You have to think that much for yourself at least, that if there is a God ? He is what he is." I am that I am." If I
could only tell you Iam has sent me. That would be Golden.

My own belief as to why the people are so divided. I believe that most people cannot bring themselves to accept substance change. Most are caught in
the mindset of the universe being the only existence while a Creationist has conditioned his or her mind to accept substance change outside of the
universe. Being a Creationists breaks the code of understandable laws that science has taught this new culture and this is not tolerated by the
science community.

Oh ya that is another thing, I mean how do you know and like you said the the rules which by the way we made up mostly about the universe were always
so, and will always be so. I mean has the speed of light stayed the same for the entirety of the whole universe, whether it be in traversing in a
vacuum or not...Ultimately you can not really be exactly 100% percent sure about such a thing. And seeing as the nature of the universe literally
seems to be change, what makes anybody think that even the most concrete things we know of today and all the laws we know of today will not at some
point in time change, and even the whole concept of time itself can change so much that it will not resemble anything like it is today.

But in question to the thread. I would define, express and explain existence today in this very moment and at least for me, in one word...That
word being... Sucky...Tomorrow however it may be something else entirely. So I suppose this grand law of change to has a purpose.

You say there is no God? You say that He is nothing but a fairy tale? Now you made that statement as a fact. I ask you to prove that statement just
as though I make a statement and you demand that I prove my statement. You must not be unfair to demand of me that which I cannot demand from you.
That is nonsense and not a conversation at all.

I met an old Portuguese man some years ago on the Island of Lagens of the Azores. Being young and a most brilliant scholar of nothing of interest, I
thought very highly of myself. Hope I'm not boring you. Now this old man was squatting on bent knees with a wooden mallet and a steel chisel. Wood
was very precious and stone s were plentiful. Every building was stone carved from the quarry nearby. I looked upon this old man in a contemptuous
manner and thought myself as a superior human who would never have his occupation in life.

I was surprised when he spoke to me in English. I knew no Spanish or Portuguese whatsoever and very quickly I sat down on a stone and started to talk
with this old man. The subject matter soon became centered on God. As I sat talking to him he asked me the most personal question that was ever
directed to my ears. He said to me " God is in this stone don't you know?" I chuckled and he frowned as he said to me "you don't believe there
is a God?" I kind of nodded my head as though to say no I did not. It was that day that I was challenged as a brilliant scholar of nothing. He
asked me if I wanted to meet this God which was in his stone. I said yes I certainly would like to meet this stone God.

The old man dropped his mallet and chisel and told me to follow him. He took me to the edge of a a deep ravine and said to me "Jump and you will
meet my God." The first thought that entered my mind was that if I jumped I would surely die. I backed away thinking that this old man is crazy. I
shouted to him that he should jump first and then I would consider doing the same. "But I don't need proof of my God and you do", he said to me.

Now you will never know if this is a fairy tale and I'm not telling you to jump but there is always proof if you seek the truth.
.

If you jumped you would simply have died, I love how the religious use these fables to try prove the existence if a god.

Considering the vastness of the universe and all the materials on our planet don't you find it strange that the religious can only offer proof of god
in their minds? If he created everything then how come we can offer more believable and realistic theories of creation?

Originally posted by Seede
Now you will never know if this is a fairy tale and I'm not telling you to jump but there is always proof if you seek the truth.
.

This is the ultimate problem with most "proof of God" tales. Each one I encounter relies solely on one basic theme: "The proof
is there, if you seek it." This is little more than clever wordplay, designed to shift the burden of proof on to the person questioning the
existence of God and away from the person attempting to prove it. It is a semantic game, and nothing more. It is a worthless argument.

What bothers me the most is how many people, on both sides of the aisle, care about what others think concerning the existence of God. I am a Deist.
I believe in God. In my mind, there is no doubt that there is a Creator. However, I am also a believer in science, evidence, and proof. I fully
admit that I have ZERO proof of God's existence. It is IMPOSSIBLE for me to prove the existence of a Creator. It can't be done. But, I also
don't care if others believe in God or not. Believe, don't believe, it's all the same to me. Your belief or lack of belief in a Creator does not
change my life one iota.

So, then, why do so many seem so intent on making sure that the other side suddenly see things there way?

Now you made that statement as a fact. I ask you to prove that statement
Now you will never know if this is a fairy tale and I'm not telling you to jump but there is always proof if you seek the truth.

This is thee top challenge that atheists hate the most, because it is a false challenge. No one can prove that something DOESN'T exist. And yet, I
could make a better case for unicorns and pots of gold at the end of the rainbow, than I could for a god.

We can see horses. We can see animals with wings. We can see animals with horns. Therefore, the idea of unicorns existing is not so far out of
reality.

We can see rainbows. We know that pots and gold exists.

However, there is no one in this universe that is all-powerful, all-knowing, capable of miracles, or invisible. So, while seeking the truth, we find
that there is more evidence for that which doesn't exist, than there is for a god.

TextConsidering the vastness of the universe and all the materials on our planet don't you find it strange that the religious can only offer proof of
god in their minds? If he created everything then how come we can offer more believable and realistic theories of creation?

I offer you the same as I offer others. As you make a statement of seemingly factual composition, then it is your responsibility to prove your
statement if challenged. There are no rules that obligates the god believer to shoulder the prove it game. The players must be on the same footing
else it is not a game. Therefore I challenge your statement of having more realistic theories of creation. What are those realistic theories of
creation that you have to offer me? You also realize that your theories are also theories by your own admission and that they are also of creation
by your very own admission.

I offer my logic as proof that there is a god. In order for you to prove me wrong you must play the game. The proof that I offer is simply the fact
of death. In death is my proof that God does exist. The next move is for you to prove me wrong. There are several ways for you to do this and those
are to enter death and testify your findings to us or simply admit that my opinion is as valid as yours.

The latter is the more sensible for the present although the day will come that you will have no choice in this matter and the proof will be forced
upon you. In death you will no longer have your universe and all of its splendor. The universal laws will still exist and you will become part of
the imagery of those laws as you return to its elements from which you came. But that is only the image of your existence. You have not addressed
the consciousness of your present day existence. Does this consciousness exist after the image has been changed
or is the consciousness an individual structure that has a continued existence? That is the question that can only be answered by death of the image.

You and I both understand that proof is nothing more than understanding a problem. As proof also changes so does the problem change. Nothing of the
universe is unchangeable simply because it is of a different substance than consciousness. If consciousness is destroyed with the image then it has
always been the image and we need not go any further with this discussion but if not then we have the same problem that has vexed the living for many
eras. If consciousness is a continuous existence then it also is not of the terrestrial order and must be independent of the universe. Then of what
order is it? It is independent of the scientific understanding simply because science (by your own admission) is of terrestrial substance. We simply
call this consciousness as being created by a Creator.

A Christian believes that the terrestrial body has no value after it has died but that the consciousness of that terrestrial body is a celestial
entity which continues to exist. That is a theological statement by me. It is strictly a belief. Science can verify my demise by the body that died
but it cannot verify the existence of the consciousness of my body which has died. If this consciousness has indeed passed out of the jurisdiction of
the universal laws then it also has nothing in common understanding with our science. Science only uses the material which is available in this
universe. Truth only exists in this discussion by proof and proof is only shown by death. There is no other solution to this problem.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.